Tag Archives: Texas

Jonathan Yarbrough: Washington State Government Mistake 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Jonathan Yarbrough

Living in the state of Texas is a blessing. Sound conservative State government continues to make Texas the best place to live, work, run a business, and enjoy life. Even with the impacts of grossly poor Federal leadership in Biden’s first year, Texas continues to fight for its people. We are not insulated from BidenFlation of fuel price and near every other staple, but at least we do not have a liberal State government piling-on other burdens.

Citizens of other states are not as fortunate. Recently, Washington State acted to pass future extreme restrictions on their citizen’s choice of personal transportation. The law sets a near future requirement for all personal and commercial light duty vehicles to be electric. In order to purchase, register, or drive in Washington by 2030, you will forced to use an electric vehicle. They say this is absolutely required in order to demonstrate that the number one fear-mongering tactic of Democrats is real and serious. You know, global warming. No, it is not warming, so now they call it “Climate Change” and any storm, fire, or natural weather event is now blamed on “Climate Change.” Whether real or not, and how serious Climate Change may be, is a subject for another day. For today, mandates by government that restrict people to uneconomic and infeasible positions is wrong- regardless of any purpose. Typically, behind such poorly conceived mandates, there will be private sector winners and losers, and likely the winners are somehow funneling money into the elites in power.

Why is mandating electric cars in one State wrong? First, there is no science that says electric cars lower emissions. The electric power grid in the US is primarily served by fossil fuel power generation. Natural gas is the fastest growing form of electricity generation, coal is still over a third of power generation. But the cars run on wind and solar, right? No, wind and solar power are growing, only because of tax dollars funneled into subsides, but the small amount of wind and solar is not what makes the newly required electricity. The growth in electricity demand, if all transportation were electric, would out -pace the grow in wind/solar power ten-fold. So, Washington State’s cars will run on coal, with CO2 emissions similar to gasoline, just relocated away from the state by power lines.

The facts of power supply and demand make Washington State’s mandate meaningless for emissions, but how will the mandate hurt citizens? First, electric cars are about twice as expensive as the similar gasoline car. So, double the car note. Yes, but then it is “free” to drive. No, power to charge the batteries is at least as expensive as gasoline. How about the power distribution capability in your neighborhood? An electric car quick-charging home unit is typically 75 Amps of power draw; most normal homes have a total power supply of 100 Amps. So, if everyone on the same street gets a 75Amp car charger and plugs in at 7pm, the supply lines will overload and trip off. The government of Washington State does not have a newly designed power distribution network that is 175% expanded in their 5 year plan. So, the short-sighted mandate just might put the citizens of Washington State out in the dark.

If subject to the Democrat elites in Washington State, the best plan would be to leave the State and bring productivity and taxes elsewhere. Those who fail to grasp facts and fall for this political nonsense should make sure the bicycle is serviced and have a good supply of candles. Those that leave the dictates are most welcome in Texas, the land of the free and fearless. Just do NOT bring the liberal nonsense that has destroyed the Sate you are fleeing.

Jonathan Yarbrough is a 60 year old devoted Christian, a father and husband, a conservative thinker, proud American, retired executive, rancher, expiring to better horsemanship on a daily basis.

 

Dr. Jack C. Askins, M.D.: HALLELUJAH, IT’S OVER! 4 (1)

Posted on by One comment

by Dr. Jack C. Askins, M.D.

Well, look at this. It’s beginning to be cool again to be truthful if you are a physician or work in the medical profession. The New York Times, The Atlantic, Bill Maher, and other liberal outlets are now running articles saying the absurdity of masks, mandates, boosters and school lockdowns must end. For the past 2 years, if a physician said anything negative about vaccines, masks, Fauci, or lockdowns, there was a risk of everything from censorship to loss of employment to loss of medical licensure.

Consequently, physicians remained largely uninformed and misinformed or simply cowered in fear of opening their mouths to object to the medical tyranny on full display. It was very disappointing to observe physicians across the country relinquish their responsibility in the medical management of the individual patient and turn that management over to autocratic and totalitarian bureaucrats.

Meanwhile, back at the academic medical centers, those physicians were receiving their generous NIH research grant checks which kept them in line and signed up for the vaccine and mandate cause. I think you can also throw hospital administrators into that compromised group who have been on the receiving end of taxpayer largesse.

Physicians have also been complicit in denying early treatment strategies using repurposed safe and approved drugs such as hydroxychlorine and ivermectin that could have saved thousands of lives. But, of course, the availability of effective treatments would have taken away the emergency use authorization (EUA) of the genetic “vaccines”, and we couldn’t have that. So, the physicians readily accepted the CDC disparagement of these drugs and became active participants in the promotion and administration of genetic “vaccines” who still have the EUA.

But it wasn’t just physicians who were taken in by all this nonsense. Smart psychologists and bioethicists have been writing about and explaining mass formation psychosis which explains how social isolation and “free floating anxiety” (anxiety not tethered to a source which can be visualized, I.e. you are anxious but don’t know why) can lead to anger and blind following of “leaders” who explain the cause of the anxiety (Covid and the unvaccinated) and offer a solution (vaccines and mandates). Millions of people were manipulated by these psychodynamics which were exploited by cleverly evil political leaders. I won’t go into detail about mass formation, but if interested, I recommend listening to the Joe Rogan podcast interview of Dr. Robert Malone on Spotify.

As Pfizer and Moderna rolled out their drugs for mass inoculation, and rolled up billions of dollars in profits, it quickly became obvious the “vaccines” were to be ineffective and potentially dangerous as the adverse events reported in the CDC VAERS data exploded.

Physicians should have locked arms in solidarity and said not just NO but HELL NO.

Instead, the vast majority of physicians meekly climbed aboard the boxcars of the Fauci submission train and took the inoculations and then eagerly participated in promoting the “vaccines” to their patients who were given the experimental (that’s right, experimental) shots without any semblance of informed consent. So much for the Nuremberg Code, the Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Helsinki, general medical ethics, and numerous Constitutional rights. Who needs all that ethics stuff when we have Biden, Fauci, and the CDC?

So here we are one year later, and we are beginning to see the facade of this evil plandemic start to crumble. Apparently, the political totalitarians in Washington, the CDC, and leftist “journalists” in the liberal media are reading the polls and realize the majority of the American people have had enough and Democrats may lose their grip on what they value most – totalitarian power to tell the rest of us how we are to live our lives.

The CDC released data 2 days ago that proclaims natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity. Can you believe it? The CDC could have said that 2 years ago as any sophomore medical student knows natural immunity is the gold standard compared to vaccine immunity. In that CDC data, Covid recovered patients are 27 times less likely to be hospitalized and 6 times less likely to die than the vaccine only patient with no prior Covid infection.

It sounds like the elites have finally reached their inconvenienced threshold and want out of the propaganda. They want their kids back in school, they don’t want useless boosters ad infinitum, and they are tired of wearing their masks and having to show their “papers” to go anywhere. Have you noticed they are vacationing in Florida and then moving there or to Texas? However, we may be seeing the beginning of the new propaganda which rejects the previous Covid narrative and we will soon hear the pronouncement that “Hallelujah, the pandemic is over”, thanks to the Herculean efforts of Joe Biden who needs you to vote Democrat this November so he can continue succeeding for the American public.

Hang on to your wallet and your barf bag.

“Dr. Jack C.  Askins, M.D. is a cardiologist in Wichita Falls, TX. This is the first article in a series of four he has authored that we intend to publish here. His reasoned scientific voice needs to be heard during these times as the COVID-19 Vaccines have become politicized through government mandates. We are encouraged by his boldness and expertise that he brings to the subject.” 

Dr. Jack Askins: HOSPITAL COVID MANDATE POINT-COUNTERPOINT 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Dr. Jack Askins

1. Proponents of the vaccine mandate for medical staff and employees at United Regional Hospital give the following reasons to justify the mandate: 1. The hospital is a private business and a private business can require what they think is best for their business.

Counterpoint response:
— A hospital cannot be compared to private business such as Chili’s or a United Market who do not receive Federal and State tax dollars.
— However, a hospital is considered “private” if it is owned and run by persons or entities who are not of the government and the hospital is not wholly supported by the government (taxpayers).
— This “private” definition appears on it’s face to be archaic and of a time when hospitals were not substantially supported with tax dollars from the government.
— Hospitals became immediately compliant with enforcement of the vaccine mandate when threatened with loss of Medicare funding from CMS.
— Hospitals stated they could not financially survive loss of the CMS funding.
— Tax money has been used to pay for the high-priced “traveler” nurses who have been working the shifts at hospitals because of a staff shortage due, in part, to the vaccine mandate.
— Hospital administrators may not directly be government employees, but the recent vaccine mandate events illustrate the Federal government actually runs the hospital and pays their generous salaries and bonuses.
— Additionally, United Regional Hospital (URH) has a Foundation that receives tax deductible donations which fund various projects including building expansion and renovation.
— URH occupies a government-supported monopoly position as the only full-service city/county designated hospital for a several county region in North Central Texas.
— URH is now citing their “private” status in order to defy the Federal District Court of Louisiana preliminary injunction which IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS and RESTRAINS the implementation of the CMS mandate.
— URH defiance of the November 30, 2021 issued nation-wide injunction is in violation of the spirit of the ruling and completely ignores the legal, medical, and scientific reasoning behind the injunction
— URH is also choosing to violate Governor Abbott’s October 31, 2021, Executive Order GA 40 which states “no entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or a consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19”.
— URH is now proceeding with the choice of coerced vaccination or employment termination for all employees and medical staff.

2. All of the employees and attending medical staff need to be vaccinated for the protection of the patients.

Counterpoint response:
— The CDC, the NIH and numerous studies in the U.S. and other countries have revealed the infected “vaccinated” person transmits the virus as easily as the “unvaccinated” infected person.
— mRNA drug “protection” wanes after 4-6 months and offers limited effectiveness against the variants.
— Hospitals in highly “vaccinated” European countries such as Israel and the UK are treating critically ill and dying covid infected patients who are “vaccinated”.
— Natural immunity confers broad, robust, and long-lasting immunity and protects against the variants.
— Phyllis Cowling, CEO of URH, proudly stated in a video this year that there has been no confirmed case of hospital staff infecting a patient.

3. All of the hospital employees and staff need to be vaccinated so we do not lose staff to the virus and then be understaffed.

Counterpoint response-Completely illogical for the following reasons:
— “Vaccinated” staff are vulnerable to infection and would need to quarantine, if infected, as would the unvaccinated.
— Many, if not the majority, of the unvaccinated employees and physicians have natural immunity and do not need the vaccine.
— There is emerging evidence the “vaccine” may be harmful when given to the previously infected with natural immunity.
— Employees with natural immunity are being fired by URH.
— The employees with natural immunity are the least likely to become infected and should be actively recruited by the hospital, not coerced into resigning or fired. Natural immunity staff are a valuable resource.

—The coerced resignations (firing) of current employees is resulting in understaffing and hiring of “travelers” at a much higher cost and less experienced with no ties to our community.

4. Hospitals are forced to mandate vaccines as CMS is now mandating all hospitals who receive Medicare funds to require all employees and others who provide services to the hospital to receive the Pfizer, Moderna or J&J shots.

Counterpoint response:
— This is actually the only valid reason for the hospital to comply with the vaccine mandate and it is a purely economic reason with no legitimate science backing.
— If CMS mandated on-demand third trimester abortions, would URH comply? How about gender reassignment surgery for children, without parental consent?
— The CMS mandate followed the FDA “approval” of the Pfizer shots. However, that “approval” was for the “Comirnaty” version, not available in the U.S. until later in 2022.
— Mandating an experimental drug without informed consent is a violation of the Nuremberg Code established after WWII to prevent Nazi-like medical tyranny.
— The CMS mandate represents authoritarian medical tyranny and is all about control and nothing to do with the public health of the citizens it purports to protect.
— Many political and legal authorities and scholars consider the CMS mandate to be unconstitutional and 27 states, including Texas, have sued the Federal government in regards to this unlawful intrusion into our lives.

— It is hoped the US Supreme Court will strike down this CMS overreach as the Fifth Circuit Court did the Biden mandate that was to be enforced by OSHA.

5. The unvaccinated with exemptions will be required to wear N-95 masks for their entire shift, socially distance from the vaccinated staff, and undergo weekly Covid testing.

Counterpoint response:
— This requirement has not been specified by the CMS mandate and apparently originated within the Administration of URH as an additional coercive and punitive measure for those defying the “vaccine” mandate. “Rules for thee, but not for me”.
— There is no recognition in this statement of people with natural immunity who are the least likely to have a breakthrough infection.
— In the often quoted Israeli study, the “vaccinated” are 13 times more likely to experience a breakthrough infection and 27 times more likely to become ill enough to require treatment or hospitalization compared to the person with natural immunity.
— Wearing an N-95 mask and social distancing is discriminatory and “marks” the employee as “dirty” or “less than” (Jews had to wear a yellow star on their chests in Nazi Germany). This requirement serves as nothing more than another coercion tactic to take the mRNA shots.
— Wearing an N-95 mask for an entire 12 hour shift is abusive, uncomfortable, and unhealthy for the wearer and leads to deviations in wearing protocol resulting in lower effectiveness.
— Ethylene oxide is used to sterilize the nasal swabs used for the Covid tests URH is requiring for weekly testing of the unvaxxed. Ethylene oxide is a known carcinogen with no known dose threshold for causing leukemia, lymphoma, breast and stomach cancer. In other words, any exposure is ill-advised.
— If N-95 masks and weekly Covid testing is considered necessary within the hospital environment, then the dictum should be equally applied to the “vaccinated” and the unvaccinated, including the hospital administration, so as not to be discriminatory.

“Dr. Jack Askins is a cardiologist in Wichita Falls, TX. This is the first article in a series of four he has authored that we intend to publish here. His reasoned scientific voice needs to be heard during these times as the COVID-19 Vaccines have become politicized through government mandates. We are encouraged by his boldness and expertise that he brings to the subject.” 

Bill Lockwood: Creating Suffering by Means of Law 4 (2)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

As I write, tens of thousands of Haitians are encamped under a bridge in Del Rio, TX. The numbers of these invaders increases so rapidly that I avoid putting a number on the thousands that are there, knowing that by the time this article is posted it will have swelled further. At the invitation of the Biden Administration they have trespassed into our nation, expecting more unconstitutional distribution of American taxpayer funding.

Last month more than 200,000 people crossed into the United States illegally. Taxpayers are funding the re-location of these invaders, ala the Biden Administration. Predictably, many of these are disease-carrying that threaten our citizens. “What’s coming over into the US could harm everyone,” a Texas Border Patrol agent warns. “We are starting to see scabies, chicken pox, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, and different viruses.” There are now credible reports of leprosy among the crowds and TB is growing globally.

But it matters not. The borders are wide open to the world under Joe Biden and obviously, these immigrants are not masked and do not have the COVID shots. No, these are the draconian measures the Democrats want American citizens to observe.

This is suffering to the American citizen on a number of fronts—by means of law—or lawmakers who ignore the law.

BLM

Marxist-oriented Democratic-supported Black Lives Matter has left a number of American cities in smoldering ruins from the 600-plus violent riots last year. This was a government-sponsored “protest” that included members of Congress. Huge corporations such as Airbnb, Cisco, IBM, Microsoft, Reddit, Snap, Amazon, Gatorade, Nabisco, and many others also donated huge chunks of cash to the anti-American cause.

Political leaders such as VP Kamala Harris even assisted in bailing out the rioters and violence-mongers so that they can loot some more. Concurrently, a huge movement to Defund the Police has gripped major cities such as Minneapolis, Baltimore, and Seattle. This is sponsored, once again, by the Majority Party in Washington, D.C.

That all of this is one-sided, consider the following.

Across the aisle, there is an Iron Muzzle on the “J6” (January 6) Trump-supporting protestors from earlier this year. These were treated differently. Not only did the Capitol Police invite many people into the building and many of those people wandered through peacefully and left again, causing minimal damage, but there is reason to believe that many of the people attending the rally on January 6 were provocateurs, whether from the FBI or Antifa or BLM, “intentionally trying to destroy conservatives.” Some of these are held or have been charged on no more grounds than that of “parading” on Capitol grounds.

Psalm 94: The God of Redress

In the face of a clear multi-tiered justice system in America, tilted to favor radicals and liberals, Psalm 94 speaks of the helpless victims of such corruption. “There is a sense in which they are by definition powerless and helpless.” The psalmist complains about eminent, powerful, important people—because they are faithless (v 2-3). Their faithlessness expresses itself in the way they treat ordinary people—ignoring the real needs of its citizens, while seeking to muzzle conservative opposition. How long with the faithless exult, Yahweh, … they crush your people, Yahweh, they put down your very own (v. 4-5).

The psalmist calls these governing officials “brutes” (v. 8). The question is asked of these, “When will you show some insight?!” Though it does not look like the “brutes” that run our country will come to reality any time soon, the comforting thought is that God notices! (v. 9-15).

God is the one who “disciplines nations” (v. 10). He does “not forsake his people, He does not abandon His very own” (v. 14). Political leaders “are stupid to make [the] assumption about Yahweh’s lack of interest in what is going on in the world.” He will not ignore the situation. Sometimes, however, it may look differently “in the short term” though oppression of the godly will not last in the long run. Authority will eventually “return to its proper basis”—God-given liberties. And then people will be able to “support the government rather than protesting it.”

The highlight comes at v. 20. Can the throne that brings destruction [unjust governments] ally with You [God]? Someone who creates suffering by means of law? That is, frequently, governments themselves, instead of enforcing law to protect its citizens, actually “create suffering” by their unjust laws. This causes in us “anxiety” (v. 19)—but God is our Rock of Refuge (v. 22). God will settle it all.

 

Bill Lockwood: Is Secession Constitutional? 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

An Open Letter to Citizens of Texas: An Answer to Rep. James Frank (District 69)

Representative James Frank (TX-District 69) recently announced that he will not support the House Bill 1359, which calls for a secession referendum in the State of Texas. His reasons are three; (1) His Love for this Country, (2) The US and Texas Constitutions—there is no specific “provision” in either of these for secession; (3) The Profound Consequences for Texas.

What follows is not an open call to secede, but a challenge to consider the principles upon which secession is grounded. To dismiss the possibility of secession as “illegal and ill-advised,” as Frank does in his letter, is what I am challenging. At the same time, I will overlook his dismissive remarks that those who wish to “leave the Republic” are some “self-described patriots.” Patriotism is not the issue; it is liberty.

While acknowledging the “profound consequences” (Frank’s #3), such as pensions, social security, status of Texans serving in the military, etc. that a separation would bring, it should be remembered that the consequences for remaining attached to the United States might be profound as well—loss of free speech; indoctrination in halls of learning; excessive taxation; a wildly out-of-control unconstitutional welfare system; a ministry of Truth (propaganda) that is already being organized at the Federal level; the crushing of Texas jobs, cancellation of 2nd Amendment; the loss of free and fair elections, and more. The only issue here is if we will allow people to weigh the profound consequences for themselves.

Pertaining to love of country (Frank’s #1), it must be stated that all of us love this country. The issue is not whether we love this country, but whether we love the gifts of God such as life and liberty more than the United States of America. The main issue I wish to address is his second objection, pertaining to the Constitution.

No Specific Provision for Secession?

Rep. Frank fails to understand the very essence, the nature of the U.S. Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #78, explains the entire principle.

There is no position which depends upon clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority [federal government] contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy [federal government] is greater than his principal [the people which created the deputy]; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Hamilton was arguing for the interposition of the Courts to protect people, but the principle is the same. That principle is that the people delegated only so much authority to the federal government; that the federal government is merely the deputy created by the principal, the people; that the master is the people and the federal government is the servant. The Federal government is the creation of the people, and it is “we the people” that give to the government its right to exist.

Why was it thus created? Not an instrument to grant rights to people, but a creation of the people to protect what God gave us; namely, life, liberty and property. Authority flows upward from the people, which is why the Constitution begins, “We the People.” Rights to life, liberty, property, and self-government preceded the creation of government.

This is the basic fundamental premise upon which all of our statecraft was built and explains why the Founders would sign a document that reads, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …” They did not look for permission for secession from England in English statutes. This same concept is built right into our own Constitution, for the 10th Amendments provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The right of self-government is one of these.

The argument for secession therefore has never been that one can find its justification in a specific statute which provides for it, but is man’s appeal to Almighty God for the right of self-government, an argument based upon natural law. Ignoring this basic fact throws our entire system into wild confusion, a confusion represented by Frank’s reasoning of the “illegality” of secession on the basis that “there is no provision” in the Constitution that grants this right. The Constitution never did grant us rights—those come from God.

Rep. Frank turns the entire nature of our Constitution on its head. Such reversal of authority is a common error, but a fatal one. American governing is such that it is the people who grant to the Federal Government its rights, not the other way around. To accept the alternative revokes Hamilton’s main point and asserts that the “deputy” is indeed greater that the “principal,” that the “servant” is greater than “the master,” for the servant does not give us a provision to withdraw!

When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia 1787 to draw up a new constitution, they were not creating a national system to “grant rights” — they already owned these rights from God. What was done in Philadelphia was to create a central government by granting to it certain specified powers that had previously belonged to their several states. The right of secession therefore, is based upon the presupposition of an inalienable right of free people to consent to the form of government under which we must live.

William Rawle, in one of the first commentaries on the Constitution, written in 1825 and used for many years at West Point Military Academy, stated, “The secession of a free state from the Union depends upon the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.” Again, “The United States were formed into a federal body, with an express reservation to each state of its freedom, sovereignty and independence.”

If Rep. Frank is correct, that secession is “illegal” and “ill-advised” then never is there an escape from a government that works to usurp the will of the people, for that is a dictum that admits of no recourse.  This cuts the legs out from beneath the Founders themselves. He takes the position that he does not favor a proposed referendum vote (HB 1359), which is only to allow the people to voice their opinions in the ballot box as to whether they would favor secession. Rather than withholding a vehicle whereby the people can speak, the earnest invitation is to give the people voice. Vote HB 1359 and liberate the will of the people. 

Alex Newman: Massive Vote Fraud Across U.S. as Trump Decries Attempted Coup 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Alex Newman

Reports, videos, and other evidence of rampant and brazen voter fraud from all across the country — especially in jurisdictions controlled by Democrats — continue pouring in faster than the Big Tech giants can censor it and the fake “fact-checking” industry can dishonestly attempt to discredit it. At this point, virtually anybody who is not depending on the fake-news media as their only source of information can see it clearly. The outcome of the election is at stake. And Trump supporters are already rallying nationwide against the “Big Steal.”

Some analysts have suggested that the Democrats’ vote fraud is so brazen in this election that it was as if the fraudsters did not even care if it was known — or worse, that they wanted conservatives to realize the vote was rigged. In any case, despite blatant censorship by Silicon Valley “Big Tech” totalitarians, President Trump is fighting hard to expose and defeat the fraud. Lawsuits have been filed by the Trump campaign across the nation, especially in crucial swing-states where much of the voter fraud appears to have taken place. And Trump is gearing supporters up for a long fight.

“The Democrats will try to steal this election,” President Trump warned in an e-mail to supporters after facing blatant censorship and other shady antics from far-left social-media services such as Twitter and Facebook. “Just like I predicted from the start, mail-in ballots are leading to CHAOS like you’ve never seen, plain and simple! The Radical Left is going to do whatever it takes to try and rip a TRUMP-PENCE VICTORY away from you.”

Trump, who has already publicly suggested that he won, warned for months that Democrats would try to cheat and steal the election, with help from their Deep State allies in the press and social-media firms. “I warned the Nation this would happen,” he said in the e-mail to supporters vowing to fight on. “I knew the Democrats wouldn’t be able to accept another CRUSHING defeat, so now they’re trying to mess with the results. It’s madness!” Still, Trump promised to “fight back” to ensure the integrity of the election. Evidence of fraud is turning up all over the place.

Indeed, a number of arrests have already been made, stretching back months, as more and more evidence of fraud emerges. In Vanderburgh County, Indiana, for example, Janet Reed was arrested on felony charges for sending out hundreds of ballot applications with the Democratic party box pre-checked. In Gregg County, Texas, a county commissioner and three others were arrested in September on 134 felony charges of election fraud, illegal voting, and more in a scheme to help Democrats in a recent election. Numerous other arrests on elections charges have been made nationwide, and police are investigating many more cases.

Michigan, a key state in the election, has also been plagued by reports of fraud and irregularities. The investigative journalist group Project Veritas, for instance, released an interview with a U.S. Postal Service worker who explained that he was ordered by his superior to post-mark ballots for the day before they were received. “Separate them from standard letter mail so they can hand stamp them with yesterday’s date and put them through,” the worker said he was told. Another video, this one from Nevada, includes a postal worker pledging to use voter fraud to remove Trump from office.

While counting the mailed-in votes in Detroit, observers and Republicans were barred from watching, with cardboard and other obstructions placed in the way. The bizarre spectacle led to widespread accusations of impropriety and a lawsuit by the Trump campaign. Similar antics are occurring in Democrat strongholds across the state and beyond as lawless efforts to block GOP poll watchers and election observers are caught on tape by concerned citizens.

And those were hardly the only problems with mail-in voting in Michigan. For instance, according to publicly available data on the Department of States Michigan Voter Information Center, a 118-year-old man named William Bradley received an absentee ballot in Wayne County, Michigan, and voted with it. The problem is that Bradley actually died in 1984. Similarly, a 120-year-old woman named June Aiken also voted absentee in Jackson County, Michigan. Same for Donna Brydges, who was born in 1901 and voted absentee in Michigan’s Mason County.

Obviously, none of those votes were legitimate. Authorities responded to the scandal by claiming that even though the government Web page shows dead people voted, they do not count those votes once they become aware of them, and based on that statement, phony “fact check” services falsely claimed the reports of dead voters in Michigan were false. Republican Party officials nationwide are calling for law-enforcement officials to visit the addresses and determine what is going on so that criminals involved in election fraud can be prosecuted and punished. Countless similar examples from Michigan and other states will undoubtedly be discovered in the days and weeks ahead. In Florida, a man has already been arrested for voting using ballots belonging to the dead.

In Wisconsin, which is also crucial to the 2020 election, the results are more than a little suspicious, critics said. For one, the state counted more votes in 2020 than it had registered voters in 2018. However, even comparing the latest official numbers on voter registration, 3.68 million, with the number of votes counted, 3.3 million, reveals that about 90 percent of registered voters turned out. Unlike many states, Wisconsin allows eligible voters to register on the day of the election, and so the state calculates turnout differently than many jurisdictions, using all eligible voters rather than all registered voters. But still, more than a few critics, including the president’s sons, argued that the numbers do not make sense. Breaking down the numbers even further, a number of precincts in Milwaukee included extremely high voter turnout that has raised suspicion nationwide.

Even conservative states run by Republicans have not been immune to Democrat fraud. In Texas, for example, Harris County, home to left-leaning Houston, appears to be the epicenter of most of the fraud. Raymond Stewart, a poll watcher and retired police officer, submitted a sworn affidavit to the district attorney about a Houston precinct judge — identified in news reports as a Democrat — and election staff who unlawfully used a “large stack of Texas driver’s licenses” to allow people to vote illegally at a “drive-through voting window.”

“Staff would come inside from the drive-through voting booth and scan a driver’s license from someone outside and get a ticket and return outside,” Stewart said. “But sometimes a staff member would search through the stack of driver’s license on the table, then scan it, receive a ticket and also go outside to the drive-through booth. As a Police Officer, I quickly became suspicious that they were committing a crime by having the unattended D.L.’s just sitting on the table and that possible voting crimes were being committed using these forms of ID.”

The problems in Texas appear to go very deep. The state political director for Joe Biden’s campaign, Dallas Jones, has been accused in affidavits filed at the Texas Supreme Court of operating a massive, illegal ballot-harvesting scheme involving as many as 700,000 ballots. The affidavits making the accusations, filed by a former FBI agent and retired police officer, allege that Jones was also ordering those ballots to be filled out in the names of homeless, dead, and elderly people. National File broke the story.

“This scheme involves voter fraud on a massive scale,” explained retired Houston Police Department Captain Mark Aguirre in his sworn statement. Using interviews, documents, and other information, Aguirre publicly identified Jones, Texas State Senator Borris Miles, political consultant Gerald Womack, and Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis. “This entire operation is being run by the elite politicians of the Democrat Party in Houston/Harris County,” the retired lawman explained, adding that he had video evidence as well.

Project Veritas also released video footage from San Antonio suggesting electoral fraud there, with somebody “helping” an elderly citizen to change her votes from Republican to Democrat. “What’s shown in the video is shocking and should alarm all Texans who care about election integrity,” Texas Attorney General Paxton said in a statement. “We are aggressively investigating the serious allegations and potential crimes that Project Veritas’s documentary audio and video recordings shed light on today.”

One of the non-profit organizations at the forefront of ensuring election integrity is the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF). Attorneys backed by the group already announced that they would be representing an unknown number of voters in Arizona, including Laurie Aguilera and anonymous plaintiffs, whose ballots were rejected after they were instructed to fill them out with Sharpies instead of pens that can be read by the machine. The scandal is being referred to as “Sharpiegate” by those fighting voter fraud across the nation.

“Plaintiff fed her ballot into the ballot box. The ballot box failed to properly register her vote, causing a poll-worker to cancel her ballot in the presence of Plaintiff,” the lawsuit explains. “Plaintiff requested a new ballot but, upon information and belief, upon consultation with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, the poll workers refused to provide her with one.”

That means the system “failed to provide for the maximum degree of correctness because at least some voters experienced issues having their ballots read because of the use of the Sharpie marking devices,” the lawsuit states, arguing that upwards of 80 percent of ballots at some locations were affected by the issue. The law requires integrity in elections so that citizens can be confident that their elected officials were legitimately elected by the people.

PILF President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams, an expert on vote-integrity issues, emphasized the seriousness of the issue. “These voters were denied the right to vote. Arizona election officials allegedly were part of the problem, and denial of the right to vote should not occur because of failures in the process of casting a ballot,” he said. “We are asking that all ballots that were uncured or denied be identified and allowed to be cured.”

Even more sophisticated methods are also being alleged. Former intelligence and military officials interviewed by Dave Janda on Operation Freedom and Brannon Howse on Worldview Weekend alleged that computer code would be used. “Scorecard steals the elections by tampering with the computers at the transfer points,” explained Lieutenant General Tom McInerney, referring to a computer program known as Scorecard used by vote-fraud perpetrators to rig the vote in an imperceptible way.

In the run-up to the election, Biden bragged about having the largest “voter fraud organization” in history. “We’re in a situation where we have put together — and youse guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this — we have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,” he said in an interview. The fake media and fake “fact checkers” dismissed it as Biden misspeaking. However, the evidence suggests Biden may have been speaking the truth.

As evidence of massive, widespread fraud from Democrat-controlled jurisdictions continues to pile up, and as the establishment media and the Big Tech firms try frantically to cover it up so they can declare Biden the winner, more than a few experts have suggested that an attempted coup d’etat is underway. In fact, The New American magazine warned that the very same shadowy officials who ran “Color Revolution” operations across Eastern Europe were making plans to target the U.S. president at home.

Whether they succeed or not will depend on what happens in the coming days.

Update: Early reports from Milwaukee City Wire showing turnout of over 200 percent in some Milwaukee wards were based on data that the outlet said have since been updated. This article has been updated based on that new information as well. Authorities in Milwaukee who spoke to The New American on background claimed reports of voter fraud from across America were a “conspiracy theory” by President Trump.  

Related articles:

Experts: Trump Is Target of “Color Revolution”

SCOTUS Validated LBJ’s Election Fraud in 1948. What Happens If Trump Uncovers It?

Soros-linked Org Prepares for Election Coup, Calls for Mass Street Uprisings

Deep State’s Plots to Remove President Trump

Transition Integrity Project Founder Wants Execution of Former Trump Official

Looming Economic Crisis to be Blamed on Trump, Experts Warn

Coronavirus: Deep State Assault on Economic Freedom

Deep State “Plan C” Is to Kill Trump, Advisor Roger Stone Warns

Trump Promotes American Revolution Over the Left’s Marxist Revolution

FPM: https://thenewamerican.com/massive-vote-fraud-across-u-s-as-trump-decries-attempted-coup/

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Bill Lockwood: Does Family Matter to the State of Texas? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

LifeSiteNews.com has picked up a story from Texas Homeschool Coalition which is said to be the “most significant parental rights case” in Texas history. The Texas Supreme Court is set this week to hear oral arguments in a parental rights case “that could shape up to be truly groundbreaking.”

The case centers around a father who is battling in the courts against a non-relative for custody of his four-year-old daughter. The non-relative was the boyfriend of the daughter’s now deceased mother. Most remarkable, all parties in the case openly acknowledge that the father is an entirely fit parent. Nevertheless, the boyfriend of the deceased mother argues he should be allowed custody rights as well.

The child’s mother died in a tragic car accident in 2018. At the time, she and the child’s father were already divorced and sharing a 50/50 custody of the girl. During the last 11 months of her life, the mother was “living with” her boyfriend. Courts have amazingly ordered “partial custody” to this live-in boyfriend. “In fact,” according to LifeSiteNews, “the judge agreed with the boyfriend’s argument that he should be allowed to come before the court on an equal footing with the actual father. The judge concurred that there should be no presumption in favor of the father’s having sole custody of his own daughter.”

“What makes this case so disturbing is that a non-parent was not simply given custody of another man’s daughter — he was given custody on the grounds that the biological father had no greater right to custody of his own daughter than did a virtual stranger.”

LifeSiteNews properly laments that horrible damage could be done to the constitutional rights of parents to raise their own children, if this case goes in the direction of awarding joint custody to a live-in boyfriend.

But I am going to add another shocking result that is already occurring and perhaps will be set in stone. It is this. The basic God-given unit of society—the FAMILY, consisting of Mom, Dad, and the Kids—is by implication considered by law as nothing worth protecting.

Christians have already witnessed “no fault divorce” in the 1970’s—encouraging the rise in divorce rates; the Obama Reorientation of what constitutes a family with the legalization of homosexual “marriage”; and now, as a matter of course, not only will biological parents have no presumption of legal custody over children which will later lead to the “state ownership of offspring”—but marriage itself will be relegated to absolute nothingness but a burden to be thrown off by a hedonistic society.

Should a “live-in boyfriend” have as much custody as a biological father? If so, this means that we are equating co-habitation with marriage in the eyes of the law. So much for the family.
Pray that the Texas Supreme Court will do the right thing—even at this late hour.

Kathleen Marquardt: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, REDISTRIBUTING OUR WEALTH BY THE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS. 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

We have been railing against Public/Private Partnerships for many years. This is not a new issue. Many times in the past we’ve tried to inform the public of the dangers of PPPs, but they are complicated and most people today don’t want to take the time to delve deeply into anything that isn’t giving them pleasure. But now is the time to become educated on just one of the ways that we are being bled dry, that our money is being sucked off with huge vacuums and given to those conspiring to destroy America and the great American dream. They are winning because we are too busy, too lazy, too involved in other pursuits to stop them.

In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:

During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”

Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.

Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.

Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:

Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.

Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.

Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.

But again, Tom nails it: Public/Private Partnerships = Government-
Sanctioned Monopolies

It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.

That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.

Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.(Note Randy Salzman’s article below.)

And Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. State legislatures across the nation are passing legislation, which calls for the implementation of PPPs.

Beware. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience. Cute little jingles or emotional commercials can be very useful tools to sell a government program.

It is one thing to spell this out. At least it gives you a foundation for what Public/Private Partnerships are. But until you are exposed to an actual project (or rather the ‘conceived’ project), you cannot fathom the intricacies of deceit, collusion, and theft of taxpayer money with which these entities are swindling us, the people.

In a must-read article from Thinking Highways, Randy Salzman’s “A ‘Model’ Scheme? is enlightening and frightening. As the lead-in says, “Salzman’s work is most comprehensive look at the dangers of P3s to date. It’s a must read for citizens and policymakers alike.” Please take the time to read it. I offer some key points from his article:

In the media, congress and across the political world, promoters pushing design-build public-private partnerships (P3s) are still claiming that private innovation is saving taxpayer money, creating good jobs and easing congestion.

In wanting to institute an “Infrastructure Bank” to address America’s “crumbling highway infrastructure,” even President Obama, using New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge as a backdrop, recently encouraged P3 construction with a US$302 billion plan. The president had apparently not read Congressional Budget Office research into P3s, nor heard the Tappan Zee contractor speak at a congressional hearing.

In March, Fluor’s senior vice president Richard Fierce bragged that his company was saving taxpayers US$1.7 billion on the new bridge across the Hudson until one congressman offhandedly remarked that he’d heard the Tappan Zee project would cost US$5 billion, not US$3.1 billion as the contractor had claimed.

Salzman points out that the ‘private’ entities “put up tiny bits of equity, though they impy more becaue they borrow dollars from Uncle Sam that they likey will not repay”; that the state and federal taxpayers are ponying up the 95+% of the bill, and we are also stuck with the cost of the bonds when “the P3 goes bankrupt – as they almost inevitably do – about 15 years down the road.”

Media coverage of P3s over the past decade, furthermore, has been overwhelmingly positive, consistently following the contractor line that private innovation is offsetting significant amounts of expense, improving projects and freeing public dollars for other activities. However, the Congressional Budget Office indicates P3s provide little, if any, financial benefit to taxpayers.

“The cost of financing a highway project privately is roughly equal to the cost of financing it publicly after factoring in the costs associated with the risk of losses from the project, which taxpayers ultimately bear, and the financial transfers made by the federal government to states and localities,” the CBO’s Microeconomic Studies director told congress in March. “Any remaining difference between the costs of public versus private financing for a project will stem from the effects of incentives and conditions established in the contracts that govern public-private partnerships.”

In that congressional hearing, Boston’s Michael Capuano reminded congressmen that “people stole money” in prior equivalents of design-build P3s, and that’s why the highway construction paradigm became “inefficiency intended to avoid malfeasance.”

Read the article – it is eye-opening even for those who understand the concept of PPPs. We the taxpayers are having our wealth redistributed in so many ways, but this is one of the most egregious.

Back to Tom’s speech on Public/Private Partnerships and our Republic:

Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market. Witness the drive for solar and wind power, even though the technology doesn’t exist for these alternative energies to actually make a difference.

Yet, the corporations, in partnership with government to impose these polices, have convinced the American public that this is the future of energy. Rest assured that if any one of these companies had to sell such products on the free market controlled by consumers, there would be very little talk about them.

But, today, an unworkable idea is making big bucks, not on the open market, but in a controlled economy for a select few like British Petroleum because of their partnerships with government.

Public/private partnerships can be used by international corporations to get a leg up on their competition by entering into contracts with government to obtain favors such as tax breaks and store locations not available to their competition, thereby creating an elite class of “connected” businesses.

A private developer, which has entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to its competitors.

The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common domain of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined common good.

The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work. The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities lose control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.

Using PPPs, power companies can obtain rights of way over private land, as is currently happening in Virginia where Dominion Power plans massive power towers over private property – against the strong objections of the property owners.

Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities across the nation, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the nation’s highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.

Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.

Of course, it’s not just American companies entering into PPPs with our government. Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, state and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.

As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, “On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years.”

In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a “no-compete” clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC. (note: the TCC is dead, but just recently I’ve heard it is going to be put forward again.)

So why do so many libertarians and conservatives support the concept of Public/Private Partnerships? By their words they profess to uphold the principles of freedom, limited government, individualism, private property and free enterprise. Yet they embrace a policy that eliminates competition, increases the size and power of government and stamps out the individual in the process.

A recent conference held in Virginia, just outside D.C. by such libertarians was titled “Restoring the Republic.” Yet, they called for open borders and “free trade.”

My question is this: What is the Republic? Is it just a notion floating on air? Something we can’t actually hold in our hand. Is the Republic just an idea? Or is it a thing? A place?

Only one nation was created by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: the United States. We were created as that Republic.” The Constitution defines a government that is supposed to have one purpose, the protection of rights we were born with.

It is true that every person on earth was born with those rights based on the principles of freedom. But only one nation was specifically designed to recognize and protect them: the United States.

If there are no borders, then what is the Republic they want to preserve? How can that be done? The Republic is the land of the United States. The laws of the United States. The judicial system of the United States. The sovereign states of the United States.

Our Constitution directs how we create laws by which we live, right down to the local level. It protects our ability to create a way of life we desire. Our resources, our economy, our wealth is all determined by the way of life we have chosen. And it’s all protected by the borders which define the nation – the Republic. And you can’t “harmonize” that with nations that reject those concepts! Canada is a commonwealth tied to the British Crown; Mexico is socialist.

So again, I ask, if you eliminate all of that by opening the borders and inviting nothing short of anarchy – then how do you preserve the Republic?

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/09/09/public-private-partnerships-redistributing-our-wealth-by-the-millions-and-billions/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: Bart Lubow and Social Justice 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Bart Lubow has been a left-wing radical for many years. Once a member of Students for Democratic Society (SDS), a front-group for communism which terrorist Bill Ayers helped to found, Lubow was even at one time deported from the Philippines for attempting to distribute communist anti-government literature. However, like the ascendency of other Marxist-oriented agitators during the current White House Administration, Lubow, having directed the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) for the Annie E. Casey foundation since 1994, is becoming influential in states such as Texas. The JDAI program is to “require states to work to reduce the disproportionate representation of minority juveniles in secured facilities.” Plainly, the goal of the JDAI is the revamp the detention and incarceration procedures in the United States along “social justice” lines.

Social Justice

Social Justice has little to do with actual “justice” but focuses attention upon “outcomes.” Decrying disparities in society, social justice advocates cry continually about unequal distribution of properties, of monies, of college degrees, and even jail sentences in America. As Walter Williams puts it, “Outcomes of human relationships are often seen as criteria for the presence or absence of justice or fairness. Outcomes frequently used as barometers of justice and fairness are: race and sex statistics on income and unemployment, income distribution in general, occupational distribution, wealth ownership, and other measures of socio-economic status.” In other words, no attention at all is paid to any underlying reason for differences, it is simply assumed that different outcomes among people is the result of crass prejudices or favoritism.

If, for example, wealth distribution is uneven among various races of people, “social justice” demands the assumption that foul play must be involved. So also, if as is the case, a greater percentage of a minority population is incarcerated than is the case with white America, the automatic conclusion among socialists is that injustices have been committed by “white society” against people of color. Differences among people or subcultures as a possible cause is never considered as that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do. The underlying assumption by Lubow is that the American system of justice is “profoundly racist” given the statistics. And for socialists on the rise, that is all that is required—show disparity in statistics. No examination of personal choices, no study of various cultural differences between races, no time wasted pondering divergent habits or pressures among minority populations—simply announce that America continues to be a “racist” state.

For obvious reasons Lubow does not seek to show that disparities between races in other areas are also caused by “white racism.” For example, the out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008 was just over 40%. The breakdown of that statistic shows that among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent while among Hispanics it was 52.5 percent and among blacks the figure jumps to a startling 72.3 percent. Consider abortion. In 2005 the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is almost 5 times that for white women. Similar “disparities” are found in almost every measurable statistic. It is clearly evident that minority cultures are fostering immoral lifestyles to an alarming degree. Yet, when it comes to discrepancies among incarceration rates, Lubow wishes us to believe that sub-culture has nothing to do with it, but that it is the result of “white racist attitudes.” That is what a good communist would do. Drive that “racist” wedge.

Lubow on “Structural Racism”

In a 2007 speech before the Chicago Council on Urban Affairs, Lubow laments the “grossly disproportionate representation of people of color” in the criminal or juvenile justice system. That 30% of African American males born “into this society will spend part of their lives in prison” should be reason enough to infuriate Americans, says he. “More than two-thirds of youth confined in secure detention nationally are youth of color” is demonstration to Lubow that our nation “mocks our claims to freedom and justice for all and, therefore, undermine[s] the very fabric upon which this society is supposedly founded.” “White people,” Lubow pontificates, “have been and still are the purveyors of racial injustice.” The blanket indictment against white society is that “white people accrue and rely upon” privileges “by virtue of skin color.”

To remedy racist America, JDAI has begun to implement core strategies “through racial equity lens.” In other words, force diverse population representation in incarceration facilities. Further, like the communist strategy of manipulating American citizens to their own demise, Lubow preaches that it is “white responsibility” to take on the issue with great fervor to change the system. We must create a “level playing field.”

So, for the citizen who thought that racial hiring quota’s were an assault on real fairness and individual responsibility, not to mention a vast overreach of federal government, much more seems in store regarding incarceration rates, if Lubow and the Annie E. Casey foundation have their way. And if Americans thought that the financial market fiasco, caused in part by federal officials leaning on lending institutions to provide loans to low-income persons who would not otherwise qualify, was a total disaster to the Housing Market, wait until our streets become more populated with criminal elements because of “racial quotas” that govern incarceration. Chaos in the streets is what socialists have always wanted. Old SDS members have not changed their stripes.

« Older Entries